We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: National Agriculture Agency Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Labour Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 4100
Description[?]:
| A bill to reform the operation of the National Agriculture Agency in order to diversify the agricultural sector. Should this bill pass, the National Agriculture Agency will no longer be allowed to retain a monopoly of farming in Kalistan. Farmers who are currently under the scope of the NAA will be allowed to leave the organisation and establish themselves privately. All farmers will still be subject to the ethical and product quality standards currently in place though and farmers who wish to receive support through grants, subsidies and so on will have to be members of the NAA. Otherwise, the NAA will continue to function as it does presently. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: All agricultural operations are state-owned and operated.
Current: Strategic crops are produced on State owned farms. All other produce is left to the Private sector.
Proposed: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Current: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Proposed: Farm size is not regulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:31:35, October 02, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | It's difficult to define the policy in regard to NAA within the options available. I have chosen 'The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families' but the bill makes clear that this only applies to farmers operating within the National Agriculture Agency. |
| Date | 22:20:00, October 02, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We will support. Farmers have the right to do what they want with their farms. However why should the government discriminate against non NAA farms? We should subsidise all farms and allow private farms to flourish independently on their own two feet. |
| Date | 22:25:08, October 02, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We feel that we should only subsidise farmers who we can be absolutely sure are following best practise and those in the NAA meet this criteria. |
| Date | 00:05:07, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We oppose. This privatization of our nation's agricultural industry is dangerous. The lifting of size regulations on farms is a guarantee that small farmers will be pushed out by big Ag. We will not support this bill. |
| Date | 01:35:23, October 03, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | The whole idea of the NAA was dangerous in the first place. |
| Date | 17:33:33, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We disagree with the Conservatives here. But, that said, when it will come to a vote, we will vote against it, and bide our time. And we specifically express our appreciation to the LP for suggesting this as a reform to the NAA, rather than just moving the law without any regard for the NAA bill, as some others are wont to do. |
| Date | 17:46:52, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We also absolutely disagree with the CIP. We maintain that the NAA was a wholly successful initiative but we feel the time is right to open the industry up. We don't view this in strict ideological terms, we are pragmatic in our outlook. |
| Date | 19:02:11, October 03, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | View it how you like, but for to long farmers have been bound up inside a union, their lives taken over and farms taken by the NAA in an occupation of which they had no say. This is the liberation of the farmer! |
| Date | 19:09:17, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | You're on the brink of talking us out of supporting a bill we proposed. |
| Date | 19:21:29, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | I find it interesting how the Conservative Party like to represent Nationalized Industry as some sort of totalitarian dungeon which the poor farmers would just love to escape. Nationalization has meant price supports where previously farmers were at the mercy of the capricious market. Farm failures have been eliminated by responsible and planned use of the land. And Kalistani consumers have a vast assortment of options in the food bank and the stores. I can't understand how putting Kalistani farmers and consumers on the sink or swim model is somehow preferable to that. |
| Date | 19:52:35, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We share the view of the KPR/SPoK. Hence why we are making this optional for farmers who feel they would benefit from being separate to the NAA. |
| Date | 23:15:11, October 03, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | Take away the NAA and small farms can directly deal with big business instead of with a huge nationalised union. Farmers should be able to choose either to become independent, run yourself, do your own deal or be part of a huge union of many farmers trying to get a good deal. |
| Date | 23:21:33, October 03, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | It's not a fricking union. |
| Date | 01:14:09, October 04, 2016 CET | From | Ottoman Islamic Union | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | we only want to produce halal meat |
| Date | 04:00:03, October 04, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | The Conservatives act like success or failure is solely based on the decisions made by the producers. This is not true. A farmer can try and try and bad weather can do them in. Changes in the market can do them in. Success is not about trying. It is about trying and luck. We get rid of the luck with the NAA, and so then if a farmer fails, they don'[t hit the ground and starve. Why the Conservatives like to hand farmers over to rich people is just beyond me, but this is pretty much MO for the Conservatives- hand let private capital rob the hell out of independent producers for their own evil gains. How much do the capitalists pay the Conservative Party to do their bidding in the halls of this Assembly? |
| Date | 07:18:49, October 04, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | I can't believe that the Parties in Kalistan are willing to sell Agriculture out to capitalism. This is really beyond acceptable. |
| Date | 19:05:21, October 04, 2016 CET | From | The Conservative Independence Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | We are not payed to express peoples views! To even suggest so is frighteningly rude. I demand the SPoK make some form of apology! I take offense that the SPoK would have people think that we would accept payments to put peoples views through in this assembly. It is my job to represent people and speak for them and not just for one ideology. We don't want to hand farmers over to rich people, we want to give people the right over their own land, what they do with the produce etc. May I remind the SPoK, there I an alternative to instantly failing, it's called SUBSIDIES! Which would become available to anyone who needs it. Also I believe that a body made up of smaller bodies working as one is a union. |
| Date | 19:36:34, October 04, 2016 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | Where is the sense in paying farmers to fail? Why would we subsidise businesses which are clearly uncompetitive for no reason? We only offer subsidies to NAA farmers because their profits are reinvested in the industry. |
| Date | 20:37:01, October 04, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the National Agriculture Agency Reform Act |
| Message | allowing unlimited accumulation of farm land is boon to big Ag. I can't think of why anyone would support such a thing, unless they were in the employ of Big Ag- that's the ONLY beneficiary of unlimited Farm size. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 533 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 116 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 101 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "Don't blow it, good planets are hard to find." - Quoted in Time Magazine |